On Jan 3, 2013, at 6:34 PM, Brian Dickson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Smith, Donald <[email protected]> > wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > >Tony Li > >Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 3:31 PM > >To: Jeff Wheeler > >Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > >Subject: Re: [GROW] [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-ops-reqs-for-bgp- > >error-handling-06.txt > > > > >I support the general concept of improved error handling and softer > >failures when possible. > > > It exasperated it by causing peers to drop and having to rebuild ribs/fibs > etc... continuously. > > Other than getting it noticed I doubt a reset will ever make a misbehaving > router stop misbehaving. > > The "continuously" points to the problem. If a session drops because of > syntactic issues, it should stay down. > Does that make sense? It is analogous to "treat-as-withdraw", just using a > much larger hammer. :-) > I think that Mike Long had it right earlier today in saying that the vendor implementation should shut the session just like max-prefix. (perhaps with a default restart-timer measured in tens of minutes)? This doesn't seem to need a protocol change though. I am also a bit wary of as Tony put it .. "nerd knobs". I've seen how some of these legacy knobs break in some new/future release as they migrate through our templates/platforms over the years. Nobody even knows what it does anymore, and the original purpose is gone but the parser still takes it ... - Jared _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
